then to win at least a single hit,=6hit minus 5 losses=1.6hit + 5losses=11spins.

meaning we must win 6spin in next 11spins bet!

thus 37-11=26th spins.this mean if at 26th spin,the result is 18 unhit vs 18hit,and we presume that 24hit/37spin, will materialised, then, if flatbet allremaining spins=11spins, and the 24/37.then u will win 1spin...presume the winning come late.

Of course if the winning come early, then why bet the remaining bet!?

18hit will normaly materialized after more than 20spins, meaning there will be at least two repeat.If at 20th spin,there is 18unhit vs 18hit,then take 24/37 as parameter.the risk= 6hit in next 17spins.

below a table of what I think, if we take the average=24hit in 37spins.With the 18 vs 18 , as the tilt point.

if ..if 24hit/37 as parameter. 18 vs 18 happend at 18th spin.then at 37th spin, the risk, will be=6hit in next 19 spins!

EXAMPLE= if 18vs18, happened at 18th spins=then37-18=19remaining spin,the risk will be 6hit in 19spins.

Weird your approach of the 2/3 rule is very interest and new on the forum.The dificulty is to discover the sleeping 12 numbers. It should be much easier when the tabble display shows the stats of the last 37 numbers. Without such a display you must note every spin. At the table it is hardly impossible.

An excel note program should be a sollution. You can try out your idea in the fun mode of a RNG roulette.

The GUT simply bets the 19 numbers which have not appeared VS the 18 numbers which have already appeared.Then bets the 19 numbers with 1 appearance VS the 18 which have 2 hits, bets 19 numbers with 2 appearances vs the 18 with 3 hits each and so on...The principle is to wait when there is almost even amount of numbers on each side and back the side which has 19 numbers against the side which has 18, after a successful bet, the 2 sides would have reversed the 18 to 19 ratio,thus the side which you always bet has always 19 numbers with less appearances which are going to be 18 when the bets succeeds.Like Weird accurately pointed, the weakness is that we don't know when exactly is going to happen.Only an approximation could be predetermined, personally I've seen 30 different numbers within 37 spins.This kind of bet is not getting hurt by many different numbers,but from a lot of repeats,I have seen 18 different numbers with 19 repeats within a cycle of 37 spins,this would be a loss for GUT.The German author suggest to bet only once per case,then wait for the next opportunity and always he recommended to bet flat without progression.Let's make 2 steps further, if we expect the minimum we could not be too wrong,for example if we want to bet that at least 7 repeats are going to occur within 37 spins, then we could wait for 6 repeats and the bet all the appeared numbers till a 7th repeat happens.The 2nd way is to expect at least 18 different numbers within 37 spins.therefore we wait for 17 different numbers and then we bet the other 20 which have not appeared in order for one of them to come.Which of the 2 ways I've just described could be better and why?Let's assume that we have 17 different numbers by 24th spin, we should bet 20 numbers for the remaining 13 spins.If we could Martingale the 20 numbers all the way to the 37th spin we would be 100% winners.This happens because we don't know when exactly in the remaining 13 spins,our win,is going to occur.At least with this way you can be sure that you will never exceed a martingale progression of 13 steps, in the contrary,when you bet an EC,you could encounter losing streaks of 14,15,16...or more!Let's take a closer look on the other way,we expect at least 7 repeats within 37 spins,thus we wait for 6 repeats to occur first and then we bet all the numbers which have appeared that far,let's assume the 6 repeats happen on the 24th spin and the total of the appeared numbers is 18,so we should bet these 18 numbers for only 1 win within the next 13 spins.This case is similar with the previous but here you have to add each number which makes you lose because we bet all appeared numbers, no matter how many times have already appeared.24th spin in my examples comes from my empirical observation,so if we could say that the average of unique/different numbers is 24 per 37 spins,then the average spin in order to activate the trigger of the 2 mentioned ways is 24th.For someone who likes the idea of aggressive progression like Martingale,with such criteria is much better because you are working within certain limits/frames and with very high degree of certainty.If we look this under the perspective that we have limited the 25 losing streak record of the EC's to 13,this is a very serious improvement!The next question is: "can we afford such progression?"The second question is: "Does the table's maximum collaborate with such progression?"If the answer to one or both of the above questions is no, then we should elaborate a trigger progression which makes once or mostly twice a step per cycle and then continues where it stopped on the next cycle of 37 spins.In other words,to determine a winning margin like Harry Joel described elsewhere.I'd appreciate you comments and suggestions.

The GUT simply bets the 19 numbers which have not appeared VS the 18 numbers which have already appeared.Then bets the 19 numbers with 1 appearance VS the 18 which have 2 hits, bets 19 numbers with 2 appearances vs the 18 with 3 hits each and so on...The principle is to wait when there is almost even amount of numbers on each side and back the side which has 19 numbers against the side which has 18, after a successful bet, the 2 sides would have reversed the 18 to 19 ratio,thus the side which you always bet has always 19 numbers with less appearances which are going to be 18 when the bets succeeds.

The GUT simply bets the 19 numbers which have not appeared VS the 18 numbers which have already appeared.Then bets the 19 numbers with 1 appearance VS the 18 which have 2 hits, bets 19 numbers with 2 appearances vs the 18 with 3 hits each and so on...The principle is to wait when there is almost even amount of numbers on each side and back the side which has 19 numbers against the side which has 18, after a successful bet, the 2 sides would have reversed the 18 to 19 ratio,thus the side which you always bet has always 19 numbers with less appearances which are going to be 18 when the bets succeeds.

Thats not gut. This statement is absolutely wrong.

If what you said is true, then you should back up what you claim.Perhaps I've described it incorrectly,but since you are not explaining where I was wrong,your comment is useless.So are you going to explain what is not correct from what I've described or you just want to make comments like: "this is not true", "this is wrong", "you are mistaken"...etc??

18 Random numbers have the same valid as an EC. The features of a 19/18 system are the same as the features of an EC system with the zero.The weakness of a 19/18 system is, you must bet 18 or 19 units per spin. The chance on a loss is likely. The risk of a large loss is very big.Why shall we play ingenious systems while very simple systems are avalable with lower risk?

18 Random numbers have the same valid as an EC. The features of a 19/18 system are the same as the features of an EC system with the zero.The weakness of a 19/18 system is, you must bet 18 or 19 units per spin. The chance on a loss is likely. The risk of a large loss is very big.Why shall we play ingenious systems while very simple systems are avalable with lower risk?

The 19/18 system is unsuitable for negative progression.

I'm afraid you are missing the most important element which is NOTtheamountofnumbers!If you cannot understand plain English why don't you stick with your Excel sheet and stop repeating the same in every post on this forum?!![size=78%] [/size]

If what you said is true, then you should back up what you claim.Perhaps I've described it incorrectly,but since you are not explaining where I was wrong,your comment is useless.So are you going to explain what is not correct from what I've described or you just want to make comments like: "this is not true", "this is wrong", "you are mistaken"...etc??

You should read the basics. You didn´t describe it incorrectly, you didn´t understand how to count and to detect crossings.

If I´d say: Bet Red. And you go and claim betting Black is not working. What can I tell except: Read again.

If what you said is true, then you should back up what you claim.Perhaps I've described it incorrectly,but since you are not explaining where I was wrong,your comment is useless.So are you going to explain what is not correct from what I've described or you just want to make comments like: "this is not true", "this is wrong", "you are mistaken"...etc??

You should read the basics. You didn´t describe it incorrectly, you didn´t understand how to count and to detect crossings.

If I´d say: Bet Red. And you go and claim betting Black is not working. What can I tell except: Read again.